All Butterflies Must Die

In a nutshell, the butterfly effect is the far off, unpredictable, and possibly dramatic consequences of a seemingly small act.

It is called the butterfly effect because the concept is often illustrated with the saying along the lines of "a butterfly flaps its wings in China and a tornado occurs in Texas."

So the obvious solution to this problem is to kill all the butterflies.

If this seems a ridiculous solution to such a problem, I will agree with you.

But the notion that all butterflies must die seems to be the solution promoted by the media in reaction to the hospital prank perpetrated by two Australian DJ's. I am frankly shocked and a little perplexed by the reaction to the prank.

For those of you living under a rock, Australian DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian called a London hospital pretending to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles in order to obtain information about the newly expecting Princess Kate.

Tragically, the nurse who was fooled into cooperating, Jacintha Saldanha, seems to have taken her own life two days later.

The death of Jacintha Saldanha by her own hand is a tragedy for certain and I pray for her soul and for her family. But the notion that the DJs are responsible for her death is ridiculous.

There is something backward in the human psyche that often demands a scapegoat for senseless tragedies and makes excuses when someone is really to blame.. And yes, Jacintha Saldanha's death is a senseless tragedy, but to some degree one of her own making. Presumably nobody made her take her own life, she did that. But that does not seem to satisfy our need for pretend justice, so we look for others to blame. We need a scapegoat.

At the very worst the DJs behavior was juvenile, insensitive, rude, and prying. But the idea that a suicide is a reasonably foreseeable consequence is ludicrous.

But we must have scapegoats.

We can see the same thing happen when some loon shoots up a movie theater. We blame the movie, we blame the psychologist that may have met him, we blame the school he attended. There is no logic in it, other than there is nothing satisfying in blaming somebody with mental illness, so others must substitute.

Even though there is no justice in it, it is in our nature to find a scapegoat to take the fall. I know this and so do you. Somebody has to take the blame for our sin and it certainly isn't gonna be the one actually responsible.

What is amazing is that we have a Savior, the least deserving ever among us, who volunteered for the job. To be our scapegoat.

And like our Lord, the caterpillar cocoons itself in a death shroud only to emerge as something beautiful, a butterfly. And sometimes we unfairly blame the far-off butterfly for our choices because that is better than putting the blame where it really belongs. Alas, all butterflies must die. It is easier that way.

Comments

Mr. Archbold is simply trying to highlight a common theme in conservatives’ complaints about the society they live in these days, in which they see a refusal to accept individual responsibility for one’s actions. In this case, as he sees it, the nurse’s suicide, while tragic, ultimately was of her own doing, not the DJs. But the critics of his commentary, I think, are quite right: The nurse, who was trying to do her job in good faith, suddenly found herself a global laughingstock — literally, a global laughingstock — and perhaps feared being the target of wrath from her employer and the royal family. Put simply, this woman who had never sought public attention of any kind had been publicly humiliated on the largest scale possible, and she found it too much to bear. The DJs never intended such an end for her, but in their deceit and recklessness, exercised for no higher purpose than to amuse themselves and their audience and to boost their ratings, they not only triggered a suicide but inflicted horrible damage on her family. Yes, Mr. Archbold, we are responsible for our own actions, and the DJs are responsible for theirs. If as a result of their calls and pranks they reap higher ratings and are rewarded with applause, higher salaries or bonuses, then so as they reap a suicide, they (and their employer) must pay a price, as they have with their jobs and their own humiliation. They are not innocent, and they are not scapegoats.

Posted by Karen on Friday, Dec 14, 2012 11:30 AM (EDT):

I think you’re going too far in the opposite direction. While I don’t think the nurse committed suicide solely because of the DJs’ joke (and making her the unwitting dupe, rather than a willing accomplice in on the joke), she most likely was going through some personal issues. The joke and the ensuing aftermath was probably the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. I speak from experience. I once decided to commit suicide after a seemingly isolated event, but it was that last straw during a time when I was undergoing severe mental stress. Thanks be to God, my attempt failed and I am here and much healthier!

What the DJs (and many people) do not understand is that one doesn’t always know what another person is dealing with or going through. Therefore it’s important to treat strangers and everyone really with as much kindness as we can (without becoming doormats ourselves). That’s why people are often shocked at suicides—they didn’t know that the person concerned was “that upset.” The DJs were being stupid, thoughtless and careless and contributed to the nurse’s state of mind that led her to commit suicide. They didn’t MAKE her commit suicide..but they helped nudge her along the way.

Posted by Jes on Friday, Dec 14, 2012 11:02 AM (EDT):

Coming from Australia, radio DJs have been embarking on a trend of increasingly tasteless practical jokes. This was just an accident waiting to happen. If not this lady, then someone else.

Posted by Mary De Voe on Friday, Dec 14, 2012 12:12 AM (EDT):

When a car crosses the double yellow line, one can say it is careless driving. If the car hits another vehicle head-on and people are killed, it is vehicular homicide added to careless driving. Did the pranksters intend the nurse’s death? I hope not. Did the pranksters cause the nurse’s death. Absolutely. A prank gone horribly wrong. Actually, the nurse never used the Duchess’ name and could have been talking about anyone.

Posted by j on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 11:43 PM (EDT):

Obnoxious pedantry time:

Actually, it is called the “butterfly effect” because of Ray Bradbury’s short story “The Sound of Thunder”. One of the characters travels back in time and inadvertently kills a butterfly while observing the prehistoric past. Upon his return to the present, he discovers that this single, seemingly unimportant action in the past has completely changed the course of history. Bradbury’s story pioneered this idea (now very common in time travel narratives) and gave the “butterfly effect” its name.

In union of prayers for Jacintha Saldanha. Requiescat in pace.

Posted by RMW on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 8:52 PM (EDT):

@Pat -

I read and re-read your article, several times, before posting. I appreciate you were using the recent tragedy in England to remind us of Christ who is/was the ultimate scapegoat but it didn’t work for me.—
The idea of the Butterfly Effect is that it begins with an innocent action, the flapping of butterfly wings, which somehow, however illogically, ends in the proverbial earthquake or tsunami. —
In the case of the DJ’s, their actions were not at all innocent as they began it with the intention of deceiving although it had the prerequisite tragic ending; as a result the article just didn’t ‘fly’.

Posted by Jennifer on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 5:13 PM (EDT):

I don’t think your assessment or criticism of the DJ’s went nearly far enough. They may not be directly responsible for the nurse’s death, I agree, but what they did was not merely juvenile and rude. It was humiliating and mocking. And far worse than merely prying, it was an inexcusable invasion of the Duchess’s privacy, and for that it ought to be criminal. I hope those stupid DJ’s are fired and are never on the airwaves again. They should be ashamed of what they’ve done. And they very well may bear some of the blame for that poor woman taking her own life.

Posted by Pat Archbold on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 2:57 PM (EDT):

I am not sure if some people don’t read the entire article or not, but I did not say what the DJs did was fine, I just said they are not responsible for the death.

I said “he DJs behavior was juvenile, insensitive, rude, and prying.” So I did not ‘exonerate’ them. If you are going to take the time to write, I think it is incumbent upon you to actually read the whole thing.

Posted by TRS on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 2:23 PM (EDT):

I’m divided.
no, it’s not the DJ’s fault.
but they’re not innocent either.
.
when planning their ruse, they could reasonably assume that IF someone gave them information, THAT SOMEONE might be reprimanded.
If you’re doing something, with no real benefit, that may result in someone being reprimanded - why would you do it?
.
that nurse was in a no-win situation—- question the Queen of her own nation, or provide harmless information (as she did, she didn’t reveal anything that ought to violate privacy rules - “she’s resting now, hasn’t been sick yet today.”

Posted by Mary De Voe on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 2:01 PM (EDT):

RMW: “Ijust cannot bring myself to fully agree with you. There is a real lack of universal charity shown when making someone be a part of a joke when they don’t expect it or want it.”
I fully agree. Using and abusing people is a crime. All people are sovereign persons.

Posted by RMW on Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 10:45 AM (EDT):

I just cannot bring myself to fully agree with you. There is a real lack of universal charity shown when making someone be a part of a joke when they don’t expect it or want it.

Instead of the butterfly effect, I looked at the whole scenario from a domino chain being set into motion. In my house the domino chain plays out like this - two of my kids are playing when I suddenly hear the younger child start crying and the older sibling starts whining, “It was just a joke!”

I reply with “A joke? A joke for who? Just you? It’s only a really good joke if everyone is laughing at the end.”

Now, we can’t be sure of anyone’s reception to any joke BUT we should be able to anticipate whoever is made the ‘butt of the joke” might not take kindly to forced into the role.

The nurse went to work never anticipating she would be force into the role of being the patsy of a poorly-thought-through prank. She wasn’t at a comedy club nor did she call the station to be a part of whatever would play out. She believed she was just doing her job.

More importantly, we have no idea what abuse or ridicule she may have endured as a result of the prank either from hospital management or fellow employees.

Should we shut down every comedian or radio personality? Of course not! But, perhaps it will make all of them (and us) think through our perceived humor and make sure it really is a joke everyone will find funny.

We all have to take responsibility for how the dominos fall - so to speak - especially when we are the ones setting them up. Granted, no one forced her to take her life but I’m okay with the DJ’s pondering a bit of their role in deciding to set up the domino chain to begin with.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Pat Archbold

Patrick Archbold is co-founder of Creative Minority Report, a Catholic website that puts a refreshing spin on the intersection of religion, culture, and politics. When not writing, Patrick is director of information technology at a large international logistics company. Patrick, his wife Terri, and their five children reside in Long Island, N.Y.